The lifestyle needs more people who are forthright rather than blissfully ignorant about the risks of STDs.

STDs are a serious problem. When I did stats for the hospital it would literally makes me cry when about every 3 months I would get the death cert for a 20-something female with the cause of death listed as a previously treatable STD (not HIV or AIDS but syphilis or gonorrhea). Yes, people really do die from these. It was also shocking for me to learn that the highest STD rates in the metro area were in the retirement community - yes really.

So, back to the OP and their problem with people who intentionally deceive others about their demographic.

I have a problem with people who are intentionally deceptive - about their demographic, their relationship status, or ANYTHING that has the potential to negatively affect me. Of course being on the receiving end of phone calls from the spouse of a playmate who purported as single is small potatoes compared to an incurable 'social' disease, but said spouse showing up at my door with a weapon would be right up there.

My two cents for all those who are deceptive - Karma can be a real bitch.

Now watch Karma kick my derriere for that sentiment... lol.

Tucson AZ

Username hidden
(30 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

ZK

I agree. It's a choice. I have seen where people are accused of homophobia and such because of choice

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(18745 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Eh. I think I'm going to just stop feeding the trolls. Only so many times I can say 'its your choice' to exclude high risk groups before I start sounding like a broken record.

Baltimore MD

Username hidden
(161 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Do you prefer the Chippendales Vulcan Heat Index rating for yours, Fun_Ahoy? Or is the AFT brand sufficient?

Fins Up, Toy Boy.

**ZZ**

Treasure Is FL

Username hidden
(8596 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"people lie"

The more I read these forums, the more I realize that is true. There are several men here who list themselves as straight, but from things they have posted, they obviously engage in male to male sex. Of all the couples with whom I have played, none have ever given me the impression that the husband had any such inclination. But how do you ever know? You don't, which is one more reason gloving up is a pretty good idea.

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(13323 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I agree that people lie, but not just about whether or not they've had sex with a man.

I am sure there are plenty of people that know they have a risky STD status and still engage in the lifestyle without informing their partners. Or at least, it's safe to assume they do. Hence, my husband and I protect ourselves to a level of reasonable risk we have both decided on. This is everyone's right, as I posted previously. I just think that there is quite a bit of undeserved stigma for men that are straight, but may want to explore a bit, or who are comfortable with male-male contact, should it occur (for example, in a DP).

I suppose this post got my ire up because the OP suggested that people who might be bi curious, then sleep with couples who say no bi men, should be charged with assault. Its a bit like a newer DC law that says any woman carrying more than 2 condoms and who loiters can be arrested for prostitution. Not only is this grossly unfair (I happen to have 4 condoms in my wallet, and there are likely quite a few women who, for whatever reason, carry more than 2, and I'm not exchanging sex for money), but also seems to be increasing the pressure on prostitutes to NOT carry condoms. If there was less stigma on bi and bi curious men, they would report it more often, and those who wish to avoid what they consider a risky group could do so with more accuracy.

I also was irked that, in the midst of what I thought was a fairly balanced debate (both sides were quoting statistics, making points) people on 'my' side were told they were terminally ill with a chronic case of idiocy (i.e. the Darwin Award comment). And then the implication that people who do consider the bi and bi curious community to be within an acceptable level of risk for them do not care about their health or families.

As I said before, is it your RIGHT to exclude groups you think are risky? Of course, we all do it. I was just disturbed by the 'assault charge' comment, and was also trying to make the point that it was anal sex that caused risk, not the bi or bi curious men themselves, and that 'hetero' couples are at just as much risk if they engage in anal, it is just that anal between hetero couples occurs less frequently.

Baltimore MD

Username hidden
(161 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Well, excluding all MSM would decrease your risk. The reason, IMO, that the CDC doesn't distinguish is because people lie. There are 1000s of people on this site that list as straight that are actually bi so it's far from foolproof. I have no problem with people doing what they deem in their comfort level if they atleast do a little research and are informed.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(18745 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Like I said, thanks for the digging.

I will be willing to concede the point that the MSM group may contain men that engage in oral sex with other men, however, this doesn't negate my point about anal sex being the most risky, despite the demographic, and that someone listed as bi or bi curious does not necessarily mean they have engaged in the aforementioned activities. Some bi men and particularly bi curious men engage in mutual masturbation, frot, kissing, etc, which are EXTREMELY low on the risk scale. The original point that all bi or bi curious men should be blocked because they are part of the MSM demographic is a bit faulty, for the reasons I've listed. Again, I think for those who want to block these groups for safety sake might be safer just blocking anyone who engages in anal sex, as it is the most risky.

Baltimore MD

Username hidden
(161 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

In a footnote...lol

"1 The term men who have sex with men (MSM) is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection, rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality."

Anyway, since the CDC also states that HIV can be transmitted through oral sex, then oral only is included in the group MSM

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(18745 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I hadn't seen that posting, and if that's the case, I'll amend my statements. However, everything that I have seen has either stated or implied that MSM is men who have anal/penetrative sex with men.

I thank you for your posting, and I'll definitely look into it.

At any rate, I think was can all agree that the CDC lists anal sex as the MOST risky behaviour.

"the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis."

"condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex is very risky."

I also encourage everyone to read the notes of a college psych professor and hearlded sexual psychologist Warren Throckmorten. Even though he is generally considered 'conservative' he does have sound information about the risks of anal sex. wthrockmorton dot com/2006/12/03/cdc-anal-sex-and-risk/

I suppose this was my point all along. Its not being gay or bi that is the risky behaviour. It is just that gay and bi men may be traditionally more likely to have anal sex, though that is changing, and recent studies indicate that a rising number of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex.

This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.All Members are over 18 years of age.Terms of Use|Privacy Policy